Who should pay, and how much

[Cecilie1200]

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sounds like it does to me.

Really? If that phrase was intended to give Congress unlimited power to do any damned thing they wanted, why did the framers bother to list all those very specific powers of Congress in that Article? What was the point?

What do you mean, it is one of the power listed.

If the phrase was not intended to give Congress the power to provide for he general welfare of the US, why would they put it in the Constitution? What was the point?

Actually, sweetie, it's NOT a power listed. It's an explanation for a power listed, which is the power to collect taxes, levies, duties, etc. Perhaps if you read the entire Article, rather than your highly expurgated and mangled cherry-picking, you would know that.

 

[KittenKoder]

I previously explained why not a flat tax. It is a tax paid by the poor with money they need for necessities while lowering the tax on the rich who pay taxes with money used for luxuries. A flat tax places an disproportionate relative burden on the poor.

On an individual basis, yes, but in total the rich pay much more.

Small compensation to the poor who cannot eat because of a FLAT TAX, I think.

And would the rich pay more?

I sort of doubt it.

Even the flat tax codes would be onerous tomes covering things like what is and what is not an expense of a business.

In fact MOST of the tax code that everyone complains about is comprised of those specifics.

As long as a rich man can write off his chauffer and body guards, and have the company pay for it, while the working stiffs have to pay to go to work and can't write any of it off, the idea of a flat tax being more FAIR is just so much neo-con bullshit.

Two words: Food Stamps ... who pays more into them and who uses them more?

Nice try. Your chauffeur analogy isn't even that accurate, look into tax laws a bit more, you do know that low income people can write off computers for job searching (even if they already have a job), craft supplies even if all you do is sell one (business expense), etc. just as much as a wealthy person can, you just have to prove it like they do.

 

[Iriemon]

it was called the tech bubble.

Wow, a "tech bubble", like Bush's real estate bubble and Reagan's micro computer bubble.

But somehow, despite a 30% tax increase, and the temendous discouragement of work that provided, and just like Cons today, Gringrich and all the other Cons predicting economic collapse -- the economy managed to have a "bubble" and create 22 million jobs.

Simply amazing.

Your history is not like our Earth history.

It's damned entertaining, though.

Thanks. It's accurate too, unless there was an assertion I made you'd care to contest.

 

[Iriemon]

Why is Social Security being talked about in a conversation concerning paying the nation's bills and balancing the budget? Isn't that supposed to be all about people's retirements? It's not technically a tax, so they keep telling us. ....

Whoever said SS was not a tax? It's taken manditorily from your salary by the Govt and spent by the Govt, and its called a tax. Who claims it's not a tax? Heck, the Govt doesn't even pretend to keep it separate these days, the SS tax has been used to finance the deficits since the 80s.

Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good.

Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?

I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."

It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.

Cite to official dribble, please.

 

[alan1]

I'm in favor of a flat tax.
There are 300 million people in the US. How about a flat tax of $10k for each person? Eliminate all other federal taxes.
I think the government ought to be able to manage to cover expenses on that amount of money. If you are married and have 3 kids, your household share of tax is $50k, if you are single and no kids, your share is $10k.
Anything you earn above and beyond your fair share of the tax burden is yours to do with as you see fit.

Are you insane? MOST people do not make 50k dumb ass.

Then maybe they shouldn't have 3 kids if they can't afford their fair share of taxes for the services they are receiving and using.
It's not that hard of a concept to grasp, sir.

 

[Iriemon]

Really? If that phrase was intended to give Congress unlimited power to do any damned thing they wanted, why did the framers bother to list all those very specific powers of Congress in that Article? What was the point?

What do you mean, it is one of the power listed.

If the phrase was not intended to give Congress the power to provide for he general welfare of the US, why would they put it in the Constitution? What was the point?

Actually, sweetie, it's NOT a power listed. It's an explanation for a power listed, which is the power to collect taxes, levies, duties, etc. Perhaps if you read the entire Article, rather than your highly expurgated and mangled cherry-picking, you would know that.

Actually, darling, it is listed right there in Section 8, the very first of the listed powers of Congress, each of which is prefaced by "To...", each of which is set off by a semicolon:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

etc.

And I agree, it is an explanation of a power, a power to provide for the general welfare as well as the other things identified in the clause.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow, a "tech bubble", like Bush's real estate bubble and Reagan's micro computer bubble.

But somehow, despite a 30% tax increase, and the temendous discouragement of work that provided, and just like Cons today, Gringrich and all the other Cons predicting economic collapse -- the economy managed to have a "bubble" and create 22 million jobs.

Simply amazing.

Your history is not like our Earth history.

It's damned entertaining, though.

Thanks. It's accurate too, unless there was an assertion I made you'd care to contest.

Unfortunately, it was so utterly and completely unrelated to anything that happened in real life, it would be impossible for me to try to dispute it point by point. Pretty much all I can do is say, "Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!" to the whole thing.

 

[Iriemon]

Your history is not like our Earth history.

It's damned entertaining, though.

Thanks. It's accurate too, unless there was an assertion I made you'd care to contest.

Unfortunately, it was so utterly and completely unrelated to anything that happened in real life, it would be impossible for me to try to dispute it point by point. Pretty much all I can do is say, "Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!" to the whole thing.

Oh honey, that is so cute! You could not identify even one erroneous assertion I made.

 

[Iriemon]

Whoever said SS was not a tax? It's taken manditorily from your salary by the Govt and spent by the Govt, and its called a tax. Who claims it's not a tax? Heck, the Govt doesn't even pretend to keep it separate these days, the SS tax has been used to finance the deficits since the 80s.

Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good.

Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?

I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."

It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.

Cite to official dribble, please.

I thought I'd help you out, sweetie, on this. Here's the cite to the Social Security Administration website, and you can read the very first sentence and see how the government characterizes SS payments.

Social Security Update 2009

You can thank me later, hon.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoever said SS was not a tax? It's taken manditorily from your salary by the Govt and spent by the Govt, and its called a tax. Who claims it's not a tax? Heck, the Govt doesn't even pretend to keep it separate these days, the SS tax has been used to finance the deficits since the 80s.

Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good.

Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?

I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."

It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.

Cite to official dribble, please.

You've never heard the government say that Social Security isn't intended to be a tax to fund the federal government? Not my problem. Where were you when Al Gore kept blathering about the "lockbox"? Who's been keeping a secret from you the cute little fiction of "borrowing" from the Social Security fund, because it's not supposed to be for funding the government?

FYI, I have no idea what your employer prints on your paystub, and it's not really my problem. The government officially refers to them as "FICA contributions".

The full text of the Social Security Act is available online. Feel free to look it up and read it. It's pretty clear that it doesn't exist to fund the federal government, whatever shenanigans they've been up to since then. The arguments made in favor of passage of the Social Security Act, which included that it should be separate from the rest of the budget, are part of the public record. Again, that you're not aware of history is not my problem.

 

[editec]

On an individual basis, yes, but in total the rich pay much more.

Small compensation to the poor who cannot eat because of a FLAT TAX, I think.

And would the rich pay more?

I sort of doubt it.

Even the flat tax codes would be onerous tomes covering things like what is and what is not an expense of a business.

In fact MOST of the tax code that everyone complains about is comprised of those specifics.

As long as a rich man can write off his chauffer and body guards, and have the company pay for it, while the working stiffs have to pay to go to work and can't write any of it off, the idea of a flat tax being more FAIR is just so much neo-con bullshit.

Two words: Food Stamps ... who pays more into them and who uses them more?

Nice try. Your chauffeur analogy isn't even that accurate, look into tax laws a bit more, you do know that low income people can write off computers for job searching (even if they already have a job), craft supplies even if all you do is sell one (business expense), etc. just as much as a wealthy person can, you just have to prove it like they do.

You are truly an misinformed

The poor cannot write off anything because, they're too poor to gain any benefit from writing stuff off.

The poor take the standard writeoff every time.

Some of the more affluent middle class make enough to use deductions, but the poor?

Not a chance.

 

[Iriemon]

Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good.

Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?

I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."

It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.

Cite to official dribble, please.

You've never heard the government say that Social Security isn't intended to be a tax to fund the federal government? Not my problem. Where were you when Al Gore kept blathering about the "lockbox"? Who's been keeping a secret from you the cute little fiction of "borrowing" from the Social Security fund, because it's not supposed to be for funding the government?

FYI, I have no idea what your employer prints on your paystub, and it's not really my problem. The government officially refers to them as "FICA contributions".

The full text of the Social Security Act is available online. Feel free to look it up and read it. It's pretty clear that it doesn't exist to fund the federal government, whatever shenanigans they've been up to since then. The arguments made in favor of passage of the Social Security Act, which included that it should be separate from the rest of the budget, are part of the public record. Again, that you're not aware of history is not my problem.

No, I didn't see a citation to back up your position in your post here, dear, but if you look in the post immediately above it, you can see where I helped you out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What do you mean, it is one of the power listed.

If the phrase was not intended to give Congress the power to provide for he general welfare of the US, why would they put it in the Constitution? What was the point?

Actually, sweetie, it's NOT a power listed. It's an explanation for a power listed, which is the power to collect taxes, levies, duties, etc. Perhaps if you read the entire Article, rather than your highly expurgated and mangled cherry-picking, you would know that.

Actually, darling, it is listed right there in Section 8, the very first of the listed powers of Congress, each of which is prefaced by "To...", each of which is set off by a semicolon:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

etc.

And I agree, it is an explanation of a power, a power to provide for the general welfare as well as the other things identified in the clause.

Providing for the general welfare can't be a power AND the explanation for itself. Is English not your first language?

Let me translate for the education-impaired:

. . . Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

". . . Imposts and excises, IN ORDER to pay the debts and provide for the common defense . . ." is what that actually means. You will notice that each of the delineated powers, such as "To lay and collect taxes . . ." and "To borrow money . . ." and "To regulate commerce . . ." is listed in its own separate paragraph, the 18th-century equivalent of bulleting. However, ". . . to pay debts . . ." is not. It's listed as part of the paragraph concerning taxes, excises, etc. Why? Because it's not a power being granted. It's an explanation of WHY the power to collect taxes and such is being granted.

The Article explains what it means by "general welfare" when it specifies duties of Congress, just as it goes on to explain what it means by "common defense" when it lays out the specific military services Congress can set up and by what method. Nothing in the original text of the Constitution is written to be a blank carte blanche of power to any branch of government.

As I said, learn to read for context.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks. It's accurate too, unless there was an assertion I made you'd care to contest.

Unfortunately, it was so utterly and completely unrelated to anything that happened in real life, it would be impossible for me to try to dispute it point by point. Pretty much all I can do is say, "Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!" to the whole thing.

Oh honey, that is so cute! You could not identify even one erroneous assertion I made.

Oh, honey, that is so NOT cute! I did identify one: your entire post.

 

[Iriemon]

Unfortunately, it was so utterly and completely unrelated to anything that happened in real life, it would be impossible for me to try to dispute it point by point. Pretty much all I can do is say, "Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!" to the whole thing.

Oh honey, that is so cute! You could not identify even one erroneous assertion I made.

Oh, honey, that is so NOT cute! I did identify one: your entire post.

Ha ha you are such a little trickster, babe.

 

[alan1]

You are truly an misinformed

The poor cannot write off anything because, they're too poor to gain any benefit from writing stuff off.

The poor take the standard writeoff every time.

Some of the more affluent middle class make enough to use deductions, but the poor?

Not a chance.

Probably the single largest deduction for most people that itemize is the interest on their mortgage. I purchased much less house than I could afford way back when. It wasn't until I stopped being able to declare myself as a head of household that itemizing actually worked for me. And today, most of that is due to charity.
It hasn't been because I was poor, but because I was frugal when I bought my house.
But I see your point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good.

Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?

I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."

It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.

Cite to official dribble, please.

I thought I'd help you out, sweetie, on this. Here's the cite to the Social Security Administration website, and you can read the very first sentence and see how the government characterizes SS payments.

Social Security Update 2009

You can thank me later, hon.

Ooh, wow! Umpteen decades of casual usage leads to one word on a website, and that becomes official government policy!

Thank you for demonstrating that you're an asshat, but I already knew that and don't much care.

While we're trading, "See, see, see!" government websites, check this one out:

Employer "Pick-Up" Contributions to Benefit Plans

What's that say there, "sweetie"? That's right. "Contributions".

Now, if we could possibly stop wasting time with all this "Look how clever I am! I can parse your words so that nothing ever gets discussed" bullshit, I'd like to get back to the issue of who does and doesn't pay the official taxes that officially fund the federal government's functions, which is the actual topic.

 

[Iriemon]

Actually, sweetie, it's NOT a power listed. It's an explanation for a power listed, which is the power to collect taxes, levies, duties, etc. Perhaps if you read the entire Article, rather than your highly expurgated and mangled cherry-picking, you would know that.

Actually, darling, it is listed right there in Section 8, the very first of the listed powers of Congress, each of which is prefaced by "To...", each of which is set off by a semicolon:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

etc.

And I agree, it is an explanation of a power, a power to provide for the general welfare as well as the other things identified in the clause.

Providing for the general welfare can't be a power AND the explanation for itself. Is English not your first language?

Let me translate for the education-impaired:

. . . Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

". . . Imposts and excises, IN ORDER to pay the debts and provide for the common defense . . ." is what that actually means. You will notice that each of the delineated powers, such as "To lay and collect taxes . . ." and "To borrow money . . ." and "To regulate commerce . . ." is listed in its own separate paragraph, the 18th-century equivalent of bulleting. However, ". . . to pay debts . . ." is not. It's listed as part of the paragraph concerning taxes, excises, etc. Why? Because it's not a power being granted. It's an explanation of WHY the power to collect taxes and such is being granted.

The Article explains what it means by "general welfare" when it specifies duties of Congress, just as it goes on to explain what it means by "common defense" when it lays out the specific military services Congress can set up and by what method. Nothing in the original text of the Constitution is written to be a blank carte blanche of power to any branch of government.

As I said, learn to read for context.

The words you capitalized, "IN ORDER" are not part of the text. Interesting comment you make to read "for context," which doesn't mean "to add in words to the text that don't exist" as you have to do to get your interpretation.

If we took your interpretation to mean that all it is saying is that Congress had the power to raise taxes and the rest is superfluous (and again, that interpretation assumes they added unnecessary language for the hell of it) Congress would not have the power to pay the debts of the United States, which is a nonsensical reading.

 

[mash107]

Wow, a "tech bubble", like Bush's real estate bubble and Reagan's micro computer bubble.

But somehow, despite a 30% tax increase, and the temendous discouragement of work that provided, and just like Cons today, Gringrich and all the other Cons predicting economic collapse -- the economy managed to have a "bubble" and create 22 million jobs.

Simply amazing.

Your history is not like our Earth history.

It's damned entertaining, though.

Thanks. It's accurate too, unless there was an assertion I made you'd care to contest.

We're dealing with the unwinding of both the tech and housing bubbles now.

I trust people to spend their money a lot better than Nancy Pelosi buying herself jets or another Bush getting ourselves into another war. We could cut so much slack from our $4T~ budget (that's not including bailouts, etc) and cut income and many other taxes with $1T, and pay into social security with another $1T. Why is a $2T budget not feasible? That would still be a much larger government than Constitutionally legal, but it would provide people money when they need it most, and restore our economy. Spending cuts first, and then tax cuts is the obvious path to prosperity. Trying to borrow ourselves out of debt is the quickest way to become a banana republic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?

I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."



Cite to official dribble, please.

You've never heard the government say that Social Security isn't intended to be a tax to fund the federal government? Not my problem. Where were you when Al Gore kept blathering about the "lockbox"? Who's been keeping a secret from you the cute little fiction of "borrowing" from the Social Security fund, because it's not supposed to be for funding the government?

FYI, I have no idea what your employer prints on your paystub, and it's not really my problem. The government officially refers to them as "FICA contributions".

The full text of the Social Security Act is available online. Feel free to look it up and read it. It's pretty clear that it doesn't exist to fund the federal government, whatever shenanigans they've been up to since then. The arguments made in favor of passage of the Social Security Act, which included that it should be separate from the rest of the budget, are part of the public record. Again, that you're not aware of history is not my problem.

No, I didn't see a citation to back up your position in your post here, dear, but if you look in the post immediately above it, you can see where I helped you out.

What part of "Your ignorance is not my problem" made you think I was going to waste my day educating you? And it wasn't all that helpful for you to show me what a jackass you are, because I figured it out on my own, "dear".